I'm sorry you are troubled but consider this case.
<xsd:simpleType name="myTime">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:dateTime">
<xsd:pattern
value="[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2}:[0-9]2.[0-9]*(Z|[+-]?[0-9]{2}:[0-9]{2})?."/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
What is the value space and lexical spece of the derived type and how
are they related?
All the best, Ashok
===========================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:35 PM
To: Ashok Malhotra
Cc: James Clark; XML Schema Comments
Subject: RE: Is +0 a nonPositiveInteger?
Ashok Malhotra writes:
>> I have come to the conclusion that when you
>> derive a simple type you should not inherit
>> the lexical representation of the base type.
I find this very problematic. The primer shows:
<xsd:simpleType name="myInteger">
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:integer">
<xsd:minInclusive value="10000"/>
<xsd:maxInclusive value="99999"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
Are you implying that there is no specified lexical space for this type?
How can that work?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ashok Malhotra" <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Sent by: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org
04/24/2002 09:34 AM
To: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "XML Schema Comments"
<www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: RE: Is +0 a nonPositiveInteger?
James:
I have come to the conclusion that when you derive a simple type you
should not inherit the lexical representation of the base type. If you
do,
you open your self to a host of problems which we can discuss another
time.
Thus, simple type derivation merely gives you a new, more restricted
value
space. You can then go ahead an specify a lexical space for this
restricted
value space and specify a mapping from the lexical to the value space.
If you look at it this way, nonPositiveInteger has a value space
consisting
of 0 and the negative integers. Its lexical space consists of 0 and
strings of digits preceded by a minus sign.
All the best, Ashok
===========================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:23 AM
To: XML Schema Comments
Subject: Is +0 a nonPositiveInteger?
Is +0 allowed as a nonPositiveInteger? At the moment there's a
contradiction. 3.3.14.1 says "nonPositiveInteger has a lexical
representation consisting of a negative sign ("-") followed by a
finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39). If the sequence of
digits consists of all zeros then the sign is optional." This doesn't
allow
+0. On the other hand 0 is in the value space of nonPositiveInteger and
+0
is a legal representation of ) in the lexical space of integer.
Either
(a) the prose in 3.3.14.1 needs fixing, or
(b) the schema for schema needs to add a pattern facet to the definition
of
nonPositiveInteger that excludes +0
If you do (b), then you will probably want to fix nonNegativeInteger to
disallow "-0". However, at the moment there's no contradiction since the
prose for nonNegativeInteger allows "an optional sign" not just an
optional
positive sign.
James